Obama won Catholic vote, regular churchgoers chose Romney [CC]

[Lapey]

Does God judge us on a curve?

As for justices, we saw a large majority appointed by republicans while Bush served his 8 years, 2 of which was with a republican controlled house, and senate. The count then was 7 appointed by republicans and 2 appointed by democrats.

Again, either way appears to be more of the status quo.

Blah blah blah, that’s all I hear. You have the same words but never say anything. WHAT DO YOU BELIVE IN??? You appear to stand for nothing.

The past does not mean the present or future will be the same. You seem to hold no hope or you do not care if anything changes.

I’ve told you before in past discussions, either get into the fight or get out of the way, be part of the solution or sit on the porch like a puppy should!

Let’s not try because we failed in the past…wow, I hope we have taught your kids better than this or nothing will change in the future…

 

[Lapey]

Have you noticed that abortion is most extremely unsafe for the unborn human being, even in the modern abortion chamber?

This is exactly correct, there is no such thing as a safe abortion!

 

[BroomWagon]

This is exactly correct, there is no such thing as a safe abortion!

I’ve seen lists of women killed by abortion or at least in the operation as well, a sort of memoriam wall as well. Unfortunately, they make the choice to do it.

I’ve seen only the names but you can almost start to make assumptions as to whom these people were from those names.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Blah blah blah, that’s all I hear. You have the same words but never say anything. WHAT DO YOU BELIVE IN??? You appear to stand for nothing.

The past does not mean the present or future will be the same. You seem to hold no hope or you do not care if anything changes.

I’ve told you before in past discussions, either get into the fight or get out of the way, be part of the solution or sit on the porch like a puppy should!

Let’s not try because we failed in the past…wow, I hope we have taught your kids better than this or nothing will change in the future…

Does God grade us on the curve?

I believe you’ve seen my statements of belief before; life begins at conception and should be allowed to go to natural death.

There were no guarantees that the future would be different. We had a candidate that was not 100% committed, and that was a change from being more pro choice than Ted Kennedy. There was sufficient reason to doubt, especially when weighed with our history since Roe vs. Wade. How many times must we ‘gamble’, only to see other issues advanced?

Now, what is the suggestion for how to proceed from where we find ourselves in this very moment? Would it be appropriate to seek a clear clarification from our Church, one that no one can mistake? Whether one wants to admit it or not, there is language being disputed, beliefs being disputed, and not just by the laity.

 

[He_Man]

Have you noticed that abortion is most extremely unsafe for the unborn human being, even in the modern abortion chamber?

Banning murder has certainly to a dropoff. They don’t even bother using our extensive back-alley system any more.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Governments should be providing running water, and fortunately I did just not always hot though. However, I have always worked for my money and believe me some positions were most distasteful but it put food on the table. I believe in assistance to help one get back on your feet not a lifestyle as I believe for many it has become.

very well said. i am currently in one of those positions that is distasteful, but i live in a small town right now and jobs are scarce and i am in a financial mess because of the real estate collapse and health issues and have bills that are due so i am thankful for any job right now.
i also believe that assistance should be to help someone get back on their feet, but should not turn into a lifestyle of counting on government assistance for the rest of your life unless there are legitimate reasons. self esteem is so important to our happiness and how we see ourselves. accepting responsibility for oneself leads to a more healthy outlook.

 

[Mickey]

Would it be appropriate to seek a clear clarification from our Church, one that no one can mistake? Whether one wants to admit it or not, there is language being disputed, beliefs being disputed, and not just by the laity.

Have you penned your letter to the Vatican asking for clarification yet? They take a while to respond, so you better start now.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Does God judge us on a curve?

As for justices, we saw a large majority appointed by republicans while Bush served his 8 years, 2 of which was with a republican controlled house, and senate. The count then was 7 appointed by republicans and 2 appointed by democrats.

Again, either way appears to be more of the status quo.

Nonsense. As you know, ONLY Republican justices voted to uphold laws banning partial birth abortion. ALL Democrate appointees voted to strike them down. NARAL supported Obama’s appointments and opposed Bush’s. The only limitations placed on funding abortions have been passed by Republicans. The only expansion of it has been under Democrat rule. There really is a difference.

My goodness, man, at some point you really need to acknowledge the obvious when it comes to abortion-mindedness and go on to some other aspect of the Democrat program that you think is equal to or superior to that of the Dems.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Nonsense. As you know, ONLY Republican justices voted to uphold laws banning partial birth abortion. ALL Democrate appointees voted to strike them down. NARAL supported Obama’s appointments and opposed Bush’s. The only limitations placed on funding abortions have been passed by Republicans. The only expansion of it has been under Democrat rule. There really is a difference.

My goodness, man, at some point you really need to acknowledge the obvious when it comes to abortion-mindedness and go on to some other aspect of the Democrat program that you think is equal to or superior to that of the Dems.

The republicans have, and still, enjoy a majority on the supreme court.

 

[Lapey]

Now, what is the suggestion for how to proceed from where we find ourselves in this very moment? Would it be appropriate to seek a clear clarification from our Church, one that no one can mistake? Whether one wants to admit it or not, there is language being disputed, beliefs being disputed, and not just by the laity.

I’m not discussing past any more. I’ll talk this paragraph if you like.

This is the suggestion, STICK TO CATHOLIC TEACHINGS! It’s all laid out, we just have to inform our consciences and conform to Her teachings. As far as a candidate, we need one that can run on his/her life as an example.

As far as seeking clarity, it is already there, we just have to see it. If you want Pope B 16 to come out and say vote for Pedro (Napoleon dynamite reference here…sorry ) you are asking for something you will not get.

I do agree the clergy must do a better job from the pulpit of preaching the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth: so help me God I have and will continue.

I can agree that the clerical message has been vague and weak and at times contradicting, but the answers are there. We have to get the filters our of our minds to allow the answers to come in. These filters are the past which we cannot change, we must push forward!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m not discussing past any more. I’ll talk this paragraph if you like.

This is the suggestion, STICK TO CATHOLIC TEACHINGS! It’s all laid out, we just have to inform our consciences and conform to Her teachings. As far as a candidate, we need one that can run on his/her life as an example.

As far as seeking clarity, it is already there, we just have to see it. If you want Pope B 16 to come out and say vote for Pedro (Napoleon dynamite reference here…sorry ) you are asking for something you will not get.

I do agree the clergy must do a better job from the pulpit of preaching the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth: so help me God I have and will continue.

I can agree that the clerical message has been vague and weak and at times contradicting, but the answers are there. We have to get the filters our of our minds to allow the answers to come in. These filters are the past which we cannot change, we must push forward!

The past is important to discussing the present. But, I’m not going to push it.

It’s very clear, except Catholics are divided, almost evenly, and both claim it’s clear within teachings of the Church. I’m not asking for any specific candidate to be named, but the language could be cleared up. The Bishops revisited the specific language before releasing the voter’s guide this year. This was done because of the last election and the admitted vagueness of language by many on both sides. The voter’s guide was released, with the same language.

People are different; intellectually and spiritually. What is easy for some to grasp, is not as easy for others. We cannot rely on what has failed us in three elections now and say, ‘it’s there.’

Let’s talk about naming a specific candidate real quick. Why wouldn’t our Church make such a declaration in an attempt to remedy the issue at hand? We both agree that the issue is of the utmost importance. This could be the push forward you speak of. Without it, we are bound to see history repeat itself.

 

[Lapey]

The republicans have, and still, enjoy a majority on the supreme court.

4-1-4, against undicided, and for abortion. the four against were appointed by republican presidents. Should we stop attempting to elec people who tell us they are pro-life because we don’t rtust theor words; especially if the other guy is a proven by deed pro-abortion on demmand guy? Come on sir, you are smarter than this.

John G. Roberts, Jr…GWBush…2005 Pro-life

Associate Justices by Year

Antonin Scalia…Reagan…1986 Pro life
Anthony Kennedy…Reagan…1988 Swing vote and unknown…generally votes conservative.
Clarence Thomas…GHWBush…1991 Pro-life
Ruth Bader Ginsburg…Clinton…1993 pro-abortion
Stephen Breyer…Clinton…1994 pro-abortion
Samuel Alito…GWBush…2006 Pro-life
Sonia Sotomayor…Obama…2009 Pro-abortion
Elena Kagan…Obama…2010 Pro-abortion

“Legal commentators tend to categorize the current makeup of the Court as 4-1-4. That is to say, there are four justices — Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – who vote the conservative position on social issues; there are four justices — Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayer and Elena Kagan – who vote the liberal position on issues; and one justice – Anthony Kennedy – who is generally conservative but remains the swing vote on social issues, particularly abortion and the future of Roe v. Wade.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

4-1-4, against undicided, and for abortion. the four against were appointed by republican presidents. Should we stop attempting to elec people who tell us they are pro-life because we don’t rtust theor words; especially if the other guy is a proven by deed pro-abortion on demmand guy? Come on sir, you are smarter than this.

John G. Roberts, Jr…GWBush…2005 Pro-life

Associate Justices by Year

Antonin Scalia…Reagan…1986 Pro life
Anthony Kennedy…Reagan…1988 Swing vote and unknown…generally votes conservative.
Clarence Thomas…GHWBush…1991 Pro-life
Ruth Bader Ginsburg…Clinton…1993 pro-abortion
Stephen Breyer…Clinton…1994 pro-abortion
Samuel Alito…GWBush…2006 Pro-life
Sonia Sotomayor…Obama…2009 Pro-abortion
Elena Kagan…Obama…2010 Pro-abortion

“Legal commentators tend to categorize the current makeup of the Court as 4-1-4. That is to say, there are four justices — Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – who vote the conservative position on social issues; there are four justices — Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayer and Elena Kagan – who vote the liberal position on issues; and one justice – Anthony Kennedy – who is generally conservative but remains the swing vote on social issues, particularly abortion and the future of Roe v. Wade.”

5 of those appointed by republicans. Prior to the two appointed by Obama, 7 were appointed by republicans.

 

[Lapey]

The past is important to discussing the present. But, I’m not going to push it.

Let’s talk about naming a specific candidate real quick. Why wouldn’t our Church make such a declaration in an attempt to remedy the issue at hand? We both agree that the issue is of the utmost importance. This could be the push forward you speak of. Without it, we are bound to see history repeat itself.

Good, let not push the past…thanks!

And about naming a cndidate, I can assure you if you sat in the pews when I have preached on the issues in this election, it would have been very clear to you who was disqualified of my vote.

 

[Lapey]

5 of those appointed by republicans. Prior to the two appointed by Obama, 7 were appointed by republicans.

Thanks for stating the obvious, again.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I am not defending anyone’s right. I am just telling you that elected people’s representatives have an unalienable right to legislate as deemed fit after much deliberation, discussion and debates. That does not mean they are legalizing some wrongs; they are merely letting people be their own judges for certain wrongs.

Your personal views may be noble but cannot be imposed on others. God did not give us a duty to decide how to penalise sinners. Obama is performing his sacred duty in an exemplary manner and it is unfair to fault him with all these negative rhetoric. His concern for the life of unborn defenceless babies is second to none. Yet he can be nobody’s conscience keeper.

It is not a personal view. It is an ontological reality that the baby in the womb is a human being.

What about when that baby was Jesus? Should the law protect Jesus? Today it does not.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Good, let not push the past…thanks!

And about naming a cndidate, I can assure you if you sat in the pews when I have preached on the issues in this election, it would have been very clear to you who was disqualified of my vote.

Gary, I don’t doubt your preaching. What about the millions of us who are receiving vague vs clear that don’t match messages? Our faith is not a pick and choose theology. Look up the Florida Bishops voter’s guide, and realize that even it was not mailed to all parishioners. At my parish, we never heard a homily about voting and I didn’t miss a Mass. I never received any instructions through the mail.

The laity knows we all answer ultimately to the Pope, on all faith and moral matters, including the clergy. Without a clarification on the language of what he wrote, it appears that the instruction is complete and that it is intended for Catholics to form their conscience and then vote accordingly. There is no absolute, ‘Catholics cannot, under any circumstance…’ language. No one can honestly argue that. Yes, proportionate can be argued, but it doesn’t remove all applicable interpretations when we see ‘may be permitted…,’ or ‘…if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion…’

There are Bishops who presented the guidance in that fashion, and some even going so far as to say that some were only interpreting so as to narrow the scope of Catholic teaching for their own personal interests.

The priest apologist on these forums states that no one sins by acting on their consciences.

It is not as clear for all as some find it to be.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

The republicans have, and still, enjoy a majority on the supreme court.

Seriously? That dude who swung the ACA decision?
Understand, it is all up for grabs. When the guv can make you buy a product it can (try to) make you violate your conscience.

I want my only label to be Catholic. I don’t want another label anymore.

 

[Mickey]

It is not as clear for all as some find it to be.

Write that letter.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I want my only label to be Catholic. I don’t want another label anymore.

I’m already ahead of you on that Michael.